This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- To: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb at sourceware dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 May 2006 22:49:03 -0700
- Subject: Re: intl directory: gcc vs. src
- References: <200605112057.NAA14726@hpsje.cup.hp.com>
Steve Ellcey <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> By removing the AM_PROG_INSTALL definition from aclocal.m4 I was able to
> run autoconf 2.59 on the src tree intl subdir with no problems but I was
> wondering if we should take the time to synchronize the GCC intl
> directory with the src tree intl directory. The GCC version is already
> configured with autoconf 2.59.
> I did some testing by copying my GCC intl directory (plus config.rpath)
> into my src tree and I was able to build binutils and gas with no
> problem and with no other changes needed. This was on a system where
> libintl was not installed and the intl subdir was built.
> What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl? Do they use
> the GCC version or the src tree version? Is there any consensus about
> whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
> which one should be used?
Yes, there should be a single version of intl. I don't think anybody
cares which version is used, as long as it works. If you have taken
the time to test a unified intl, and are prepared to fix any problems,
I think your patch would be great.